Why did the Empire cut the story off with a very biased statement about the occupation, made by a refusenik? I think it leaves an impression that is inaccurate and unfair. It is also an injustice to the book's author, who has, as it says in the beginning of the story, avoided political bias. Yet, the Empire snaps off the second half of the story, leaving it hanging on a very biased remark about the "occupation."

Until the Oslo Accords were refused by Yasser Arafat (98 percent of what he wanted was offered and refused) and Arafat declared the intifada, the cafes and shops of the West Bank were stuffed with Israeli diners and shoppers. As the bus bombings accelerated, the cafes emptied and the economy collapsed. Previous to the intifada, not a single Israeli soldier was stationed in the West Bank. Not one.

As terror reigned and weapons poured in from Arab countries using the Palestinians as fodder in a war by proxy, the Israeli army came onto the scene. Looks like an occupation, doesn't it?

The Empire left the story hanging on an ugly note that does not reflect the reality of the demographics. The situation is very complex. Wanting peace real bad should not automatically translate into peaceniks always being right. What is right is to educate oneself fully.

Part of that may be newspapers playing it straight. I don't care for the Empire's agenda.